Le 10-nov.-06, à 05:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
> The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda
> calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon
> really
> hard to relate to.
I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on
"lambda conversion".
Why do you want use the lambda calculus if you don't want use its
"jargon"? The advantage of using some very well known formalism (like
LAMBDA, or the combinators) is that you can directly refer to well
known theorem in the literature. Of course you have too familiarize
yourself with a bit of technical jargon, but lambda calculus is a
technical matter, so this was expectable.
Perhaps you could use a popular functional programming language like
LISP, before moving to the more technical lambda?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Nov 10 2006 - 06:37:40 PST